Counter
You need Java to see this applet.
Hosting by Yahoo Web Hosting
JESUS CHRIST
Second Person of
The Trinity
CROWN OF THE
KING OF KINGS!
Mr. Clarkson:

As we are in all cases of visitation, let me begin by saying how thrilled we
are that you took the time out of you busy schedule to spend time with us
to day.  I must state that unfortunately, I do not have the time to spend on
the topic of the issue you raise, insofar as, I have other writing projects in
the works, I am behind, and I must do all that I can to get them done as
quickly as possible.  I am running out of money and time, and I may never
get another wonderful opportunity like this again.

Now, let me assure you, my friend, that the Bible does in fact teach a
“Trinitarian” concept of God.  Consider these passages and brief
arguments.  If the ones you site do in fact “stipulate” God in only one
Person, as you suggest, then what do these signify?  Moreover, bear in
mind that the term translated “God” in Deut. 6:4, and in virtually every
other place
whose language this concept occurred might have had difficulty grasping and explaining it, he would (or, should!) have had no
difficulty seeing the “dichotomy” (God’s choice and repetitive use of the term Elohim as descriptive of Himself was never
meant to imply the “singularity” characteristic of its root word ‘Eloah’).  Thus, with rare exception, God never refers to
Himself in the Old Testament, except in the plural.

God's choice and repeated reference to Himself in the plural, to any mind capable of at least some rationale and “discernment”,
was and is not the least without significance, rhyme or reason; nor is it arbitrary or capricious.  He was not at all ignorant of the
grammar of His people.  With regard to how He chose to represent Himself before, and in the eyes of Israel, He knew full well
the difference between His term of choice, and its singular alternative.  Hence, when He said to them “hear, oh Israel: Jehovah
(the Self-existing, Eternal One:  single) our Elohim (Gods:  plural of, and as opposed to Eloah:  singular) is one Jehovah”, He
understood fully, the ramifications.  A single YHWH, who is our plural Elohim, is equal to one single YWHW!  

Huhn?!  He understood the ramifications, but, even today, one would be hard pressed to find one Jew who understands!  Any
grammarian or mathematician, on any level (within the scope of competency) can see right away that either the God of all
Heaven and earth has a problem (in which case some remedial training in basic arithmetic might be most apropos), or, He has
intentionally created a simple dilemma that remains a major headache for anyone, Jew or Christian, to either digest or to
explain.  Fillet and gut this declaration on the horns of any inquisitive mind nets a message that at first glance is both self-
contradictory and absurd.  No doubt, then, that’s the equation with which we are to grapple, but, “what is the point”?  It is
highly unlikely that He has any problem with either grammar or simple arithmetic, in any language.  So, what’s He saying?

There is a point, Mr. Clarkson.  This is not an idle assertion.  Are we not talking “God” here, who has a kind of fetish for
speaking in familiar terms, sometimes concealing messages which often require His people to streeeetch, to bend their hearts
and minds more and more toward Him, away (conversely) from the “familiar”, before one can fathom and appreciate their
meaning?  Therefore, we conclude then, that obviously, His desire was and is that He should be thought of, recognized and
received as a Plurality of “Individuals” (all having the same attributes, goals and aspirations, aims and objectives, power,
privileges and potential, authority, and level of sovereignty), who make up the One God, Jehovah Elohim.  Reconsider the
equation:  A single YHWH, who is our plural Elohim, is equal to one single YWHW!  All of that nation’s needs and concerns
(and ours) can be met, as it were, in One Stop, by a “multiplicity” of individuals, all acting in concert, in one accord (no readily
quantifiable hints were ever given in the Old Testament, as to how many; only the New Testament makes this clear).  God’s
designation or classification of Himself thusly, is in stark contrast to the system, or pantheon of gods to which the newly freed
slaves from Egypt were accustomed.  In this, and virtually all such similar systems, one practically had a god to meet every
need (by now it should be clear that this Book, the Bible, must not simply be read to be understood, it must be read with
“discernment”, watered with prayer for guidance from the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Holy Trinity.).  Moreover, in so
saying, God was positioning Himself in ancient Israeli/Hebrew thinking, so as to narrow their focus from many gods, to the
One True and Living God.  The various Self-ascribed names coined and utilized throughout the OT round out that endeavor by
identifying and highlighting the diverse aspects of God’s persona which allow Him and Him alone (in multiple Persons) perform
favorably and faithful in all areas, to the satisfaction of every need of His people.